Clark v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
442 F.3d 708 · 2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · Furman v. Georgia · Ring v. Arizona
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To find that the special circumstance, referred to in these instructions as murder in the commission of an arson is true, it must be proved: 1. That the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of an arson; and, 2. That the murder was committed in order to carry out or advance the commission of the crime of arson or to facilitate the escape therefrom or to avoid detection. In other words, the special circumstance referred to in these instructions is not established if the arson was merely incidental to the commission of the murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Brown“Q: What was your primary goal in going to the [Gawronski house] that evening? A: To shoot David in front of Ava. Q: And in relation to that primary objective, what relationship did the fire have? A: The fire was a tactic to achieve an overall strategic goal, if you want to use those terms. It was a means to an end.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Brown
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.